Education

Nikole Hannah-Jones Doesn't Understand 'The Idea That Parents Should Decide' What Schools Teach

The 1619 Project author thinks Terry McAuliffe had it right.

|

Nikole Hannah-Jones is a New York Times journalist and architect of the 1619 Project, a Pulitzer Prize–winning series of articles that recontextualizes the central roles that slavery and racism played in America's founding. Those articles are now being taught in some public schools, even though numerous critics of the project have raised questions about very basic factual issues in some of the pieces.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise, then, that Hannah-Jones is uncomfortable leaving curriculum decisions to people who are not district officials and would thus be less inclined to teach her work. In a recent interview on Meet the Press, Hannah-Jones confessed that she did not "understand this idea that parents should decide what's being taught."

Her statement echoed widely panned comments made by former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, during the 2021 gubernatorial race against Republican challenger Glenn Youngkin. McAuliffe's statement denying that parents should play a paramount role in the education of their own children is rightly seen as a realigning moment—one that allowed Youngkin to run (and win) on a platform of making the public education system accountable to families. But Hannah-Jones seems to believe that McAuliffe had it right, even if his comments were unpopular.

During the Meet the Press interview, Hannah-Jones made an attempt at consistency, taking the position that neither she nor other non-educators have the relative expertise to decide what should be taught in schools. "I'm not a professional educator," she said. This is a somewhat confusing claim coming from someone who is currently a tenured professor at Howard University's School of Communications; she is, quite literally, a professional educator.

As it turns out, the idea that parents should broadly surrender their rights to public school officials is both unpopular and misguided. Yes, it's possible for parents to become too involved in school affairs, getting individual books removed from library shelves. But much of what parents have found objectionable in the past year is truly eyebrow-raising: As I wrote last January in "An Anti-Racist Education for Middle Schoolers":

Fairfax Public Schools in Virginia invited Ibram X. Kendi, an activist and author of the books How to Be an Antiracist and Antiracist Baby, to have a virtual conversation with principals, administrators, and teachers. Kendi, who was paid $20,000 to speak for one hour, believes that the Constitution should be amended to create a federal Department of Anti-Racism with the power to censor public officials who make racist statements. The district also bought $24,000 worth of his books, which argue that any arrangement producing unequal results along racial lines is racist by definition.

The National Education Association (NEA), for instance, wants schools to offer a critique of "empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society." It doesn't matter whether you define this sort of thing as critical race theory—though the NEA certainly does—it matters that activist educators are working to include it.

The best solution to the education culture wars is to give parents the best kind of choice: school choice. Instead of engaging in venomous, all-consuming battles over what schools should teach to students, families should be empowered to take their education dollars and find a schooling option that best fits their children. "The critical race theory debate wouldn't matter if we had more school choice," noted Reason's J.D. Tuccille. "Guide your children's education and let your opponents teach their own kids."

NEXT: 2021 Was a Great Year for Zoning Reform

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What is grating is their arrogance about being so ignorant. People like Jones just know so many things that are simply not so.

    Fucking tragic.

    1. The entire social justice pyramid of grievances is an ideological foundation for grifters.

      Kendi, who was paid $20,000 to speak for one hour, believes that the Constitution should be amended to create a federal Department of Anti-Racism with the power to censor public officials who make racist statements. The district also bought $24,000 worth of his books, which argue that any arrangement producing unequal results along racial lines is racist by definition.

      The reason they want government involved in the classroom to teach this insane CRT shit is largely because it ensures an endless demand for their product. Do they really hate white people? I think so, but I also think the profit motive is the main consideration.

      If you sell weaponry, you lobby the government for war. If you sell vaccines, you lobby the government for mandates. If you sell CRT you lobby the government for compulsory education.

      Same shit, different toilet.

      1. Hear, hear. And when we catch the local school board spending money on this sort of shit, we should immediately publicize it, laugh about it, and use it to run the fools out of office.

        1. I'd prefer telling the Board that if they have the funds to waste on THAT bullshit, they clearly are over-funded as is and we need to consider cutting their funding now.

      2. This is why racism wasn't allowed to die when it was running out of steam in the late 90s and early aughts. It became a non-issue, but there's grifters like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ben Crump, and others who make their livings based on the idea that racism is real and it's everywhere.

        And I can say this without claiming it was some grand conspiracy, either. It's people who are motivated to find something, so their brains are wired to interpret vague things as racist. To the point where they can just make any interaction of white and black people racist in some way because they're actively hunting for it. And it's in their best interest to hunt for it because finding it is extremely profitable. There's so much money in that even white people like Robin DiAngelo want some of that money.

      3. Well said. All these totalitarian, leftist wannabes just want to do is borrow your kids for a bit of “indoctrination”. Then continue the process with a special push of “brain washing” in college, where you’re former children are treated like clients, rather than students; and where free speech is conditional (it has to fit the socialist narrative). This is about political power pure and simple; and these clowns need to be severely repudiated in 2022.

    2. What people don't understand is that education majors are not experts abd some of the dumbest people on the planet per their college entrance scores. That is why they hold so tightly to their worthless doctorate degrees.

      I tutored in college and one of the primary classes I did was a 300 level math class for education majors titled sometimhing like the theory of counting. It involved simply learning non base 10 systems like binary and hieroglyphics. The average actor for the class was a C. It was amazing to watch. Their finals was converting base 10 to binary. And it was a fail out class. At the 300 level.

      1. I'm sorry for the distraction but Hieroglyphic counting? What system did the ancient Egyptians use? I know that the Phoenicians counted their knuckles and then their fingers, giving bases of 12 and 60 (the only remnant of which is on the clock), but this is intriguing.

        And are you serious that college juniors couldn't do binary conversion? That is high school level computer science.

        1. Basically the substitution for symbols instead of the numerical systems they grew up with.

          https://www.greatscott.com/lessons/numbers/

          They also learned roman numerals and those conversions.

          Basically the course tried to teach them counting as a theory, not a base 10 numerical system. The symbols don't matter, it is how the symbols relate.

          Won't even get started on basic algebra and replacement of f(x) equations when you solve for f(2)

        2. And that there are 360 deg in a circle, or is that babylonian?

      2. "What people don't understand is that education majors are not experts abd some of the dumbest people on the planet per their college entrance scores. That is why they hold so tightly to their worthless doctorate degrees."

        This x 1000. Education majors were one of the bottom tier in my college and we just always laughed about them. Well they laughed at us too, because we couldnt get black out drunk nightly and get a 4.0 in our majors (most of us were physics/bio/chem). But we laughed about them because when you tried to carry on a conversation with them it was clear they had slightly more intelligence than a grocery store clerk...in their final years of college. It amounted to little more than showing up, taking pieces of lesson plans from various pre-made sources and cobbling one together, repeating leftist dogma (when I was there privilege was starting to creep into the universities more heavily) and getting your head-pat then diploma. The only thing they were good for, is a guarantee that there would be a good amount of hotties among them as by nature a group of average to slightly less than average IQ girls is probably going to have a high amount of very fuckable (but hard to listen to) girls. Thats about it. Wrap it up though young guys. You dont want to be attached to one of these.

        They had the lowest SAT/ACT scores of almost all the groups (the grievance studies majors were the lowest by far...AA studies (lets be honest the football team), Latino studies, women's studies, not as deep as our current array of victim courses today). They most notably had an absolute lack of critical thinking and analysis skills. Seeing them try to get through life, problem solve, or hold their own in a debate made that very evident.

        And these are the people the left wants us to blindly follow as "the experts". Because of course they know those "experts" will blindly regurgitate the junk social-science and CRT they have been loaded up with like good little commies. Sorry losers, I didnt get degrees in physics and then an MD to have an "expert" that likely can't even do basic calculus teach my kids that "you dont have to get the RIGHT answer, because that's whiteness in action, and hurts minorities".

        1. I'll clarify this slightly and say that it's general education majors who are so dumb. They really don't know anything about any subject material.

          There's a few who are interested in a specific subject material, so their major will be in math, physics, or history, with a minor in education. Some of those tend to be much more intelligent because they're actually interested enough in the field to go into more advanced classes. Some universities used to require that you pick a major in a non-education field of study, even, but then you end up with a lot of teachers majoring in Sociology...or worse, Political Science.

          1. We have a few very intelligent teachers in our small school system. Also a lot of morons that would be outscored by my 13 year old in about any subject. I would say the average teacher is a little smarter than him, but not to the degree they would be successful at anything else.

            1. At some point school turned into a daycare service. So instead of educators, they started training babysitters.

          2. I've long argued education should be, at best, a minor with a major in an ACTUAL discipline.

        2. I remember the hierarchy was: start as an Engineering major. Fail. Try Communications. Fail that. Now it’s either Education or quit and get a real job.

          There was a kid who’d already been through the cycle and was studying for his final in the course “Mathematics for Elementary School Teachers”. He was literally taking a class in fourth grade math for college credit. He passed, and is now a teacher.

          1. No. The hierarchy was start as a MECHANICAL Engineering major, fail that, try ELECTRICAL Engineering, then if that didn't work out, try CIVIL Engineering.

            If you worked your way to the bottom of the practical stuff in the catalog, you went for PoliSci.

        3. As a now retired former under grad math major I now cruise on my 42 foot catamaran in the Bahamas and down island. Met a very young guy (in his 30s) from Canada who is one of the smartest peeps I have ever known cruising on a boat just like mine. His concept was that there should be a literacy test for voters. It would consist of having to solve three partial differential equations. Always kinda liked that idea.

    3. I'm Mark Twain, and I approve this message.

    4. Stupid Marxist cunts like this should be unemployable.

    5. You guys need to get off the blue pill and realize that they are not just simply ignorant. They will not come around once to you provide them with the proper argument. They are interested in power...plain and simple. CRT is their mechanism. Your logical arguments don't matter and won't stand in the way.

    6. Stupid bitch can't get anything right.

  2. Hannah-Jones confessed that she did not "understand this idea that parents should decide what's being taught."

    Serious question: How long until people must be licensed (non-photo-ID, of course!) in order to raise a child?

    1. Woman has a history degree from Notre Dame, and disclaims expertise in "social studies?" SS is the amalgamation of history, geography and any other social "sciences" and/or humanities in elementary school courses, basically done just to save time in the school day for reading, English, math and other subjects. A criticism I heard a Political Science chairman at my university, back in the 1970s, was that high schools in most states didn't teach enough world history. The Prof taught an honors section of Intro to Intl Politics, and didn't like freshman enrolling unless they had some background beyond US history. Our state required two years of that: 1 on the rise of Western Civ and another on Africa and Asia. We learned about the slave trade, and not just in the Americas.

  3. It is quite sad she has to get Wikipedia rewritten to hide her lies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casor
    Interesting note concerning Wikipedia;
    This is the text I captured April 15th.
    At this time (1665), there were only about 300 people of African origin living in the Virginia Colony, about 1% of an estimated population of 30,000. The first group of 20 or so Africans were brought to Jamestown in 1619 as indentured servants. After working out their contracts for passage money to Virginia and completing their indenture, each was granted 50 acres (20 ha) of land (headrights). This enabled them to raise their own tobacco or other crops.
    This is how it now reads
    At this time, there were only about 300 people of African origin living in the Virginia Colony, about 1% of an estimated population of 30,000. The first group of 20 or so Africans were brought to Point Comfort in 1619 as enslaved Africans. After working between 15 and 30 years, most were granted their freedom to purchase land and start their own homestead.

    The changes were made on October 29, 2020:
    Major restatements were from ‘indentured servant’ to ‘enslaved African’, from ‘Jamestown’ to ‘Point Comfort’ (perhaps to avoid searches including Jamestown? Point Comfort is 40 miles downriver from Jamestown), from ‘granted land’ to ‘granted their freedom to purchase land’ (after serving an indenture, they were free by law, and no granting of the freedom to purchase was needed).

    1. Here is the link to the edit page
      https://en.wikipedia.org/ w/index.php?title=John_Casor &diff=next&oldid=979332193

      1. It was edited. Where are you getting that Nikole Hannah-Jones is behind the edits? Did you explain how you know that?

      2. The current text is:

        At this time, there were only about 300 people of African origin living in the Virginia Colony, about 1% of an estimated population of 30,000. The first group of 20 or so Africans were brought to Jamestown in 1619 as indentured servants. After working out their contracts for passage money to Virginia and completing their indenture, each was granted 50 acres (20 ha) of land (headrights). This enabled them to raise their own tobacco or other crops.

    2. Plus they ignore Spain and the slaves they brought to Florida much earlier.

      1. And they leave out details like the fact that the slaves transported from Africa were bought from African slavers.

        -jcr

        1. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh, so much this.
          Lying Prog calls them "Africans" until somehow majikally they become "slaves" when they touch the shore of Evil Amerikka.

    3. The irony is that the entire argument of white (mostly Irish) slavery in America was dismissed because indentured servitude was judged a fundamentally different institution from slavery. Until it's not.

      1. So he can get caught in a revert war where the article changes every hour?

        1. If he has better sources and can write a more accurate entry, he should absolutely edit the Wikipedia article.

          1. Which will only result in his change being reverted by whoever changed it in the first place.

          2. Do you consider Hannah-Jones' 1619 Project as a source? Do you plan to defend that?

            If not, revert the change.

  4. Is chemjeff around today? This topic could really use his trademark #RadicalIndividualistsForRacialCollectivism / #LibertariansForCRTInPublicSchools advocacy.

    1. Chemjeff never promised you a rose Weingarten.

    2. He’s probably elbows deep in leftovers.

  5. Fun fact:
    Quote on the twit platform; "I am not a professional educator"
    Yet somehow she has a tenured position at Howard University.

    (as far as I can find out, the tenure was granted immediately, without any need for actual work, and the position is as "Knight Chair in Race and Journalism")
    I guess it means as much as her pulitzer prize.

    1. Devaluation is all the rage now.

    2. Her qualification, her only qualification, is being black. Decades ago, opponents of affirmative action predicted that, eventually, idiots like Hannah-Jones would be the result.

      And they were right.

    3. That is a real humdinger.

    4. If her position is at Howard University, then no, she is not a professional educator.

      LOL

      1. Im old enough to remember when Howard was a good college.

        My oldest Daughter graduated from Grambling, and it wasnt worth it, to me or to her

  6. Ms Nikole-Jones has it entirely wrong, from the very premise. It is 100% the parent's responsibility to educate their children. It is the parent's responsibility to raise their children, instilling in them education, morals, a respect for others, all the things that make us human beings. We delegate parts of it (education, vaccinations) and such to the state, but we are still in charge, and allow such things to happen only as much as they let us raise our children properly. We made the children, after all, and are responsible for feeding and clothing and sheltering them -- as much as the gov't wants to blur the lines by doing all these things for the irresponsible fools who have children they are unable to care for.

    For the most part, the "professional educator" as marked by those who have "education" degrees, did not exist until the 1970s. It came about as a way to weed out the unenlightened from the administrative levels of public schooling (and universities); eventually they replaced subject matter experts at all levels of high school. I was taught chemistry by a chemistry major. My kids were taught chemistry by a computer and an education major. I brought my own kids up to level with home teaching and reading recommendations, whiteboard demonstrations that took an embarrassingly short amount of time, compared to class time. Everyone else in that class just suffered from the useless, unknowledgeable teacher.

    Fuck that noise, Nikole-Jones. Fuck your "professional educators" taking over the jobs from people who actually knew what they were teaching. It has never been more true: those who can do, do. Those that can't do, teach. And now, those who cant teach, run their useless airholes trying to tell the teachers what they can and should be teaching.

    1. ^This.

    2. You premise also has a fundamental flaw. Progressives (of which 95% of "professional educators" say they are) are not human. Why would you expect them to want human values instilled into children?

    3. It's kinda funny when you realize the "it takes a village" crowd has now shifted to being "it takes 'professional educators'". No doubt because there are some undesirables in the village. How long before it changes yet again to "it takes authoritarian mandates" - oh wait, that's redundant.

      1. And they use the stupid comparison of "You wouldn't tell a surgeon what to do."

        No, you wouldn't tell the surgeon how to perform the surgery, but parents do know their kids allergies, their kids' blood types, their medical history, whether their child has asthma. They'll share all this information with a Doctor, a professional, if they take them in for a visit. In fact, parents have a responsibility, more than a right, to ask a Doctor: "The medication my child is taking is not working, can we try something else?"

        If you're that involved with doctors, who require much more expertise than a lousy teacher, then yes, you can tell teachers that what they're doing does not work for their children. When I was teaching (for three years before I quit) I wasn't bothered by the parents who wanted to talk about their children. I was bothered by the parents I couldn't get in touch with when I needed to tell them their student was failing.

  7. Well, because she thinks schools should teach her hateful bullshit and she realizes that most parents recognize her hateful bullshit as being hateful bullshit.

  8. "I'm not a professional educator" - yet she wrote the curriculum for the bullshit the schools are teaching.

    But of course there's the motte-and-bailey argument that if you're opposed to CRT being taught in the schools (which it's totally not) you must be a racist who's opposed to kids being taught about slavery, Jim Crow laws, Rosa Parks and MLK.

    No, what we object to is the essence of CRT being taught in the schools which is that racism is a necessary and sufficient explanation for all of human history. Hell, I grew up in the '60's and '70's when Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee was an assigned text in history class and Roots was the television event of the millennium. We understand the "warts and all" approach to teaching history, but Howard Zinn is the fucker responsible for the "just the warts" teaching that took over the field.

    If the first thought that pops into your head when somebody mentions George Washington is "slave owner" rather than "Father of our country", you've been indoctrinated rather than educated and I'd bet more third-graders know George Washington was a slave owner than know he was our first President.

    Forget the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the communists won the Cold War and have taken over the country.

    1. I went to school in the '60s and '70s as well, and had a similar experience. Those who claim that slavery, racism, Jim Crow, etc. were ignored before CRT came along to save the day are either painfully ignorant or are just flat-out liars.

      1. Lying Jeffy is both.

      2. I was also in schools in the 60's and 70's and would suggest that in fact a lot about slavery, racism and Jim Crow was left out of the schools. That not to say we did not get some education on the subjects, but they were clearly manipulated to be more palatable. The Civil War was taught more as a fight between and industrial north and an agrarian south, then as a result of slavery.

        1. Weird, I remember being taught the Civil War was ALL about slavery, and only later learned there was more to it than that.

          1. Well, your education was different from mine. Most of my education centered on the battles of the Civil War. We learned more about the generals than the foot soldiers, and the civilians.

            As for slavery being responsible for the war, that was a footnote and little more.

            1. Color me unsurprised that your education was substandard.

            2. It is possible that you were taught it and your so retarded you could comprehend what the teacher was saying

              1. Except, I aced history, so I don't think that is that case.

                But you and other seem to remember being taught more about slavery in the US. So can you give me a short synopsis of what you remember being taught?

                1. Im sure your teacher gave you a "pass" for sitting there eating paste and regurgitating what he wanted you to say.

                  And you understood that to be "acing!". Based on your usual commentary, this is the likely scenario. Sorry for your subpar education, most of america already has learned of the trail of tears, jim crow, slavery, red-lining, the dixie-crat KKK etc. Dont extrapolate your poor education to the rest of the country.

        2. I do remember being taught that the North won because it was industrial and the agrarian South just couldn't handle it. Perhaps that's what you're remembering.

          1. One of the things I remember being taught was using the Civil War as an exercise for learning about biased sources. They had us read excerpts written about the Mitchel Raid (Also called the Great Locomotive Chase) to see how they favorably described the participants on either side. When we discussed the causes of the Civil War, slavery was the #1 issue, but we were taught there were additional issues involved as well.

            This is what I got from a public high school in Georgia. We also learned about Reconstruction, Jim Crow, lynchings. We were supposed to learn about the Civil Rights Movement but it seemed like we were always getting stuck on World War II and the early Cold War stuff before the year ended.

            That's the thing, though: teachers have to prioritize. There's going to be some selection bias but there's things that students need to know, and anytime you want to add diversity and multiculturalism, you're cutting into the time you need for a lot of the really big stuff. I have no idea why they decided American highschoolers need to learn about Ancient India, the Empire of Ghana, or Shogun Japan. Those are interesting fields for expanded study but they're less relevant than the growth of Western Civilizations that led to the writing of the Constitution.

        3. That's very different from my experience. The Confederacy was very clearly portrayed as the villain of the story. We spent weeks on the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights movement. We were taught that Native American people were the victims of genocide. We were taught about the plight of migrant farm workers. etc I don't remember any of this being all that palatable.

        4. Maybe it depended on where you were. I went to K-12 in Connecticut in the 60s and 70s and had the same experience as INI.

        5. We got that version too ( industrial vs agrarian). It's only as an adult that I started doing my own research to see if I could come up with a counter to the "it was all about slavery" that is now the rage.

          The "South Carolina Declaration of Secession" and others (Alabama? Miss?) are pretty clear that the elephant in the room was indeed slavery.

          OTOH, Lincoln's statements were pretty clear that he really was focused on preserving the Union, and anything he did with respect to slavery was a tool in the service of that prime goal.

          So..... someplace in the middle really is the answer on this one.

          1. One thing I learned in school was that the Civil War started with the bombing of Fort Sumpter. But it wasn't until I visited Charleston SC that I actually understood why this happened and how important slavery was to the city of Charleston. When you see that much of the city was built with slave labor, the importance of slaves to the plantains and that Charleston was a center of slave trade, you understand why the fighting started there.

            1. Nothing like checking the facts out for yourself! - GroundTruth

              1. ... or using Grammarly to prevent munching on the "Plantains of Ft. Sumpter."

            2. Yet like the Civil War itself, doesn't tell the whole story.

        6. The Civil War was taught more as a fight between and industrial north and an agrarian south, then as a result of slavery.

          Nobody believes this. Left wingers only say this because their only goal is to denigrate America. They'll say anything and truth is not a relevant concern.

      3. Teachers showed us *two* docudramas where blacks were on the receiving end of slavery or discrimination. One was the 1980s version of 12 Years a Slave (not the remake). Not prettified for the audience.

        If they're trying to throw sand in our faces and say that pre-CRT, the schools were all moonlight and magnolias, then what else are they misinforming us about?

    2. Bill Ayers and other 60s radicals went into the education field, For 50+ years this left wing slant has been growing. We now have the communist Howard Zinn's history of the USA taught and now this Mother of Bozos ravings. And you know what? Parents didn't do a goddamn thing about it.

    3. Oddly enough, the two things that struck me most when I used to go to Mount Vernon as a kid were how the old glass windows melted and how sucky the slave quarters were.
      So the slavery thing isn't too deep on the list of my thoughts about him. The initial thoughts related to him are always "first president" and "Delaware crossing."

    4. "rather than "Father of our country",

      He's no more the father of the country than Martha, his loving wife, is the mother of the country.

  9. If ever there was going to be a historical example of just how stupid our society got during these times, it would be the success and prominence of someone like NHJ.

    1. She is one of many millionaire grifters riding the elevation of emotion and critical theory the media decided to lift up.

  10. 'Nikole Hannah-Jones Doesn't Understand' is a more factual headline. And, calling her a journalist is a bit of a stretch. She is a muckraking fabricator.

    1. Bullshit. She understands perfectly well. She's opposed to the idea, thinks children should be the property of the state so that they can be more easily brainwashed.

      1. Carefully there Jerryskids, you're dangerously close to speaking the truth!

        That's a capital offense in most places.

        1. I'm not sure she's smart enough to make those decisions, but I don't doubt for a second that she thinks she knows better than everyone. The pure earned intelligence of voting D always blows my mind. I know way more people that severely overestimate their own intelligence because the don't "vote against their own best interest", than I do on the other side of the aisle. There are plenty of pussy grabbing, backwoods, mullet sporting, tobacky spitting idiots who vote R no matter what, but they are WAY more humble than the other side of it.

          1. I think you’re on to something. Nikole Hannah-Jones just wants media attention and maybe a little relevance; she could give a damn about the truth and/or logic. I’ll take my down-home “deplorables” any day over these arrogant pseudo-intellectuals and their psycho-babbling diatribes. Egalitarians trump elitists.

  11. Lefty Jeffy disagrees Robbie.

  12. Trying to get woke government school boards and unionized teachers to avoid progressive curricula is akin to pushing a glacier up a mountain.

    Unenroll your kids and find alternate, better tutelage for them. It is the best thing you could ever do for them.

    1. Just advocate for charter schools. And if you believe money should be provided for education of a student instead of pay for a teacher, advocate for ESAs.

      1. My money still gets taken from me and ends up at charter schools. I don’t eat at Wendy’s so I shouldn’t be forced to send money to Wendy’s. Regardless of whether people need to eat or not.

        1. this argument is specious and categorically incorrect... as demonstrated easily by the following examples:

          I have a well/septic and don't use municipal water, so thus I shouldn't pay for my local or state water treatment centers or municipal sewers and storm runoff drains?
          I own a car and don't use public transportation, so thus I shouldn't pay for local or state public transportation?
          I didn't have a house fire last year, so thus I shouldn't pay for the municipal fire company?

          the fact is, a public benefit such as a charter school or public school (or water treatment, or fire/police...etc.) [theoretically] increases the level of quality education, and is beneficial to society, thus we all pay a portion.

          1. I am on a private well with an individual septic. I don’t pay a water or sewer bill. As it should be. Utilities need to be going concerns. If not, they need to raise rates on their customers so that they are fiscally sustainable. The folks on the municipal systems do not pay for my water or septic. As it should be. My town taxes contribute to costs associated with maintaining and improving drainage.

            The roads and bridges are mostly but not entirely paid for via the fuel tax. So if you own a car that does not travel on a public road, you are mostly not paying for that road you don’t use. Unless you use some other service such as Uber, in which case your fee includes their cost to travel on the public road (as well as fuel, vehicle depreciation, labor, taxes and profit). I’d prefer the entirety of it be paid for via usage. I’d also like EV drivers that use public roads to pay for their use of the roads, which does not happen everywhere in the US.

            How much did you pay Wendy’s in 2021?

          2. Aside from the broader question, do you really think public fire stations are analogous to your other examples?

            1. Hey, he barely dodged "Muh roads!" so cut him some slack over the rest of his collectivist rantings.

          3. Fuck you, no. You don't buy or benefit from those things so you should not be forced to pay for them at gunpoint.

          4. To answer all your questions:

            Hell no!
            Hell no!
            Hell no!

            Re: fire-fighting: Even when paying for private fire protection, you wouldn't wait for a fire. You would pay with premiums in advance as you would insurance. (Most free-market fire-fighting takes the form of fire prevention, such as smoke and CO detectors, fuse boxes, breaker boxes, safety valves with thermostatic controls, home and business fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, fire brakes dug in yards and fields, flame retardant foam and materials, etc.)

            And if keeping fire from destroying your home also prevents destruction of your neighbor's home, that's not "free-riding" by the neighbor, that's what's called a "bonus."

            And education of children is too important to be left to the hypothetical (which you incorrectly called "theoretical.")

            Next question.

  13. On a completely unrelated topic, does anyone remember when midterm elections are?

    1. Canceled due to the Alpha-alpha variant.

    2. What difference will it make? The only changes coming are the decor of the speaker's and Majority leader's office. Not one fucking dime will be scraped back. Not one fucking new federal job will be eliminated. Not one fucking GND law will be repealed.

  14. Nikole Hannah-Jones Doesn't Understand.... and you can just fill in the blank from there.

    1. And the song of the same title could be done by DJ Jazzy Jeff and The Fresh Prince:

      DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince - Parents Just Don't Understand
      https://youtu.be/jW3PFC86U

  15. If you want democratic institutions to fund public schooling, and you don't want parents to democratically decide what and how it's taught, then convince parents to democratically choose that they should be ignored when it comes to schooling.

    I would note that a policy of "We don't care how you want us to teach, now pay up!" might not go over well at the ballot box.

    1. If does show how little they think the public should be overseeing government run institutions despite their rhetorical worship of democracy.

      1. I think their view of democracy is limited to the people getting to choose which "progressive" will be popping the whip on our backs.

  16. The very reason I homeschooled my children is I would rather pay for nothing the what they were selling.

  17. Interesting coincidence. I've been reading Sowell's Intellectuals And Society recently, so this is little surprise to me...

  18. "...families should be empowered to take their education dollars and find a schooling option that best fits their children."
    It is not "THEIR" education dollars, it is the tax payer's.

    Part of the argument against school choice is simply: the tax payer is paying district school taxes in order for the local schools to education the areas children. Any monies taken away from those schools hurts the collective by reducing the funds those schools have to educate the children who are attending.

    Don't misunderstand, I am for school choice and/or the wholesale privatization of schools. But right now, in solving one problem, you are creating another... by removing funds from public schools, education for those kids who remain is likely to get worse, not better. Or taxes will just go up. Or both. I think the start should be in tax reform in how we setup school tax districts and pay our school taxes.

    1. With school choice any funds taken from public schools come with a concomitant reduction in school expense via fewer students. So why should the quality of education suffer, other than public school systems suck at managing themselves? Which is kind of the point.

    2. Any monies taken away from those schools hurts the collective by reducing the funds those schools have to educate the children who are attending.

      Public schools are funded on a per-pupil basis. Whether you are taking your child out of one public school and into another or you are taking your child out of that same public school and homeschooling, the impact on that school is the same.

    3. I fully understand.

      With voucher schemes and schemes to "send the money where the student goes," people who don't have children and parents with grown-up children are still forced to pay for schools, and students are still compelled by law to attend. With compulsory funding, citizens are still subject to the injustice of funding curricula they don't ùse and disagree with. And with compulsory attendance, the Nikole Hannah-Joneses of the world still have a captive audience.

      It w9uld be better to let every citizen keep as much of the fruits of their labor as possible, then let those who are parents use their newly-recovered gains to make their own education choices, as well as food choices, health choices, housing choices, etc.

  19. Unfortunately, this is a battle that seem to be dominated by inarticulateness. Parents should have input into their children's schools, but educators need to design curriculums that reflect the real world and prepare children for that world. Parents seem to know what they don't want but have a hard time articulating what they want. Educators don't seem to be able to defend their need to create curriculums without insulting people.

    1. My issue here is that it is not the "parents" who should have input to public education... it is the taxpayer who should have the input (granted, taxpayers with children are more likely to pay attention). As long as society is paying to education the children, society should have a say in how they are educated.

      We do that with representation through school board elections.

      Don't like they way the schools are educating your kids? Run a campaign to remove the school board and put those aligned with your values or quit asking everyone else to foot the bill for your kid.

      1. Problem here is that school board elections often have low participation rates. These are dominated by most interested parties usually those support by the local Teachers union or by the local far right. It would be nice to as you say get the average taxpayer's input.

        1. That is a condemnation of representative democracy as a whole. Special interest groups have an outsized voice across the board, not just in education.

          Also, make no mistake: "parent" is a special interest group just the same as unions, CRT folk, anti-porn types, etc. Just because your interests align with their interests does not make that less so.

          1. "Parent" is not a special interest group in any meaningful sense of the word.. rather, the choice of education of *your* child is a fundamental human right (this is not my opinion - see, Article 26 Section 3 of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights).

            I have the right to choose hebrew school, or catholic school, or islamic school, or public school, or charter school, or homeschooling, etc.

            It is truly not a "special interest."

            1. Couple of issues:

              First, WTF cares what the U.N. thinks is or is not a fundamental human right? They no more get to decide than any other group what is and is not "gospel". Regardless, it has nothing to do with special interest or not and I cannot figure out why that would exclude anything.

              Special Interest Group: A group of people or an association of individuals or organizations, that, on the basis of one or more shared concerns, attempts to influence public policy in its favor.

              Black, gay, trans, women, handicap, etc. make up a large number of special interest groups; why do you think "parents" would somehow be exempt from that?

              Second, the choice talk about is "school choice". What I was talking about was "curriculum" within a school. The parents who are pressuring the schools to teach, or not, specific topics, ban books, control bathrooms, etc. are very much trying to influence public policy [as decided by an elected school board].

              1. I suspect most woke "liberals" care what the Declaration of Human Rights says.. which was the point.

                Further, the fact that someone is a member of a special interest group, by your designation of some type of arbitrary metric such as skin color or sexual affinity, does not make that person a "special interest," you are conflating two discrete things.
                "Parents" as a "special interest group" is so wildly broad as to be utterly useless as a metric, particularly because each state is authorized under the Constitution to separately set their own school system, curriculum, education standards, etc.; hence why there are 50 different designs - and additionally, the reason that the federal Dept. of Education is both illegal and unconstitutional on its face. Faction membership does not equate to special interest group as a whole, I thought we established that in Madison No. 10....

                Finally, "curriculum" is the obvious thrust of the fundamental right to determine the education your child receives. If I am opposed to, say, religion in schools, I have the right (including a Constitutional right under the US Constitution) to advocate for its removal, and barring that, to place my child into any other school teaching any other curriculum I see fit (again, a right under the US Constitution penumbras).

                1. My point was, that it does matter what woke liberals, or anyone else, think about human rights... that is a red herring of no relevance here.

                  You also misunderstood... I am not saying "parents" as a collective is a special interest group. My point is that the parents who are all coming together with a shared value in an effort to alter public/school policy are a special interest group, by definition. Just like all blacks are not a special interest group, but NAACP or BLM very much are. What any of this has to do with U.N., federal or state constitutions, or the Federalist Papers I cannot fathom.

                  "Finally, "curriculum" is the obvious thrust of the fundamental right to determine the education your child receives. If I am opposed to, say, religion in schools, I have the right to advocate for its removal, and barring that, to place my child into any other school teaching any other curriculum I see fit "

                  That is pretty much what I said. If you decide, for example, that evolution is garbage and want it removed from the curriculum, you are certainly welcome to advocate for its removal or send your child to a school which does not teach such things. Once you decide where your child gets and education (public, home, private, etc.); however, your rights become more limited (albeit less so with home schooling). Outside of pulling your kids from a specific school, if you want to change the [public] policy of the education within the school, you need to find a group of like minded individuals to try influence the [public] policy. If only there were a term for that collection of individuals...

                  1. My point was, that it does matter what woke liberals, or anyone else, think about human rights

                    aka, "The Tony Fallacy."

                2. Like women?

            2. Anything that needs to be produced, such as education, can’t be a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are always available to anyone, absent positive denial from someone else. Education has to be produced. What happens if no one wants to teach? How does everyone get that right?

              1. human beings need to be produced - is your argument that there is no fundamental right to life, i.e., to be free from murder, enslavement, and unjust imprisonment without due process, or the like?

                Education can further be "produced" by me, a parent, to my child. It is a fundamental right that I have the ability to choose to do so, and the state cannot interfere.

                Your point of view is not wildly uncommon but is mistaken.

                1. human beings need to be produced - is your argument that there is no fundamental right to life

                  You're equivocating.

                  Apply the formula you were provided:

                  What happens if no one wants to have babies? Do babies have a right to come into being such that people must be compelled?

                  You don't have a right to anything that someone else has to provide for you, because compelling someone to provide you something against their will is the very definition of violating their rights.

                  1. A right that is not exercised, i.e. a baby is not born, does not mean the right doesn't exist..

                2. You sure are missing the point. You are conflating someone’s right to produce something - e.g. education for themselves or their children - with someone’s right to have that thing produced for them. Your point of view is so illogical it isn’t commonly mistaken. And yes, humans are produced. But there is no fundamental right to have that production done for you.

        2. Even better if the average taxpayer wasn’t forced to fund it. It eliminates a host of problems.

          1. Not only is that a non-starter, it is a bad idea. Education is the single biggest factor in helping a typical lower class child being able to better their life, achieve a higher class of living, avoid a life of crime, and avoid becoming part of the welfare state.

            There is a very real ROI in educating our youth population and turning them in to more productive tax paying adults. That benefits us all.

            1. I’m not responsible for educating someone else’s kids. If people valued it, they would use their own money to fund it. Government schools here are close to $20,000 per student per year. A friend who homeschools his kids says it costs them between $500 and $1,000 per kid per year. Their kids outperform the average students in the state. They also don’t have debates about vaccination, masks, peanut butter in the cafeteria, pedo teachers, transgender bathrooms, transgender athletes, school resource officers slamming kids to the ground, carbon belching 4 mpg school buses, white kids reading Mark Twain passages out loud in a room with black students, CRT, creationism, LGBTQ+ and a myriad of other issues.
              Collectivism is expensive and has little accountability.

              1. You are conflating multiple things.

                Yes, government is wasteful and expensive. Yes, homeschooling may be more cost effective, at least as long as your are willing to dismiss any potential lost wages of the parent educators. Yes, homeschooling and private schooling often times outperform public schools. Yes, public schools often get caught up with goofy, silly, and even harmful debates which detract from educating the kids (when and where I was in school, boys were sent home daily for hair touching the collar, like that was important or had anything to do with education). Yes, their is not enough accountability in public schools.

                But none of that has anything to do with funding or whether or not the public at large should, at the very least, help pay for education.

                "If people valued it, they would use their own money to fund it. " is easy to say if you are not living week to week and/or can afford one parent to stay home to educate (if there even is two parents or of either parent is capable of educating). Those who most need an education in order to rise above the past of their parents are also those with parents who are least willing and/or can least afford to offer such an education.

                This isn't about collectivism vs. individualism. You can see a very real return on investment with education based on lifetime salaries, lifetime taxes, percentage of differences in welfare and incarceration, etc. It is certainly worth it to society to help pay for education; however, that does not mean that HOW we are spending our education dollars right now makes since or is anywhere near the best value for our money.

                1. You are confused. Simpler: I don’t use government schools and should not be coerced into funding them.

                  “Woe is me” can also be applied to housing, food, healthcare, clothing, transportation, entertainment and Obamaphone. I should also not be forced to fund those for folks not under my roof.

                  1. Not confused. I just don't think: simpler = better

                    You argument against paying could also be said of roads you don't use, infrastructure you don't use, and a whole host of govenment services you don't use. We all cherry pick what we do and don't think a government should provide, what a government should and should not pay for, and what should be provided by the private sector.

                    My argument is that you can find a very direct return on investment with education that you don't see with most other programs. The career (i.e. tax paying) prospects for someone who can read and write is much higher than those who cannot. Those with a high school education make, on average, much more during their lives than those without. Education is a relatively cheap way for society to not only maintain, but also increase that tax base. That, in turn, benefits us all.

                    If someone can find that same type of ROI with Obamaphones, then it is at the very least worth considering (although you count me as doubtful).

                  2. I don’t pay for the roads I don’t use in California. Nor do Californians pay for the roads in my area they don’t use.

                    Just about everything should be paid for based on actual use.

                    You are equating government schools being necessary for people being able to read and write. And then government schools being necessary to create net positive taxpayers. There are few of those, especially so if they have their own kids attending government schools.

                    $20,000 = poor results via collectivism
                    $1,000 = solid results via personal responsibility

                    Sunset the government schools. You are free to continue funding them out or your own pocket if you like the return. They are only a good ROI for administrators and teachers unions.

                    Your kids = your responsibility.

                    1. You are wrong about the roads. Almost anything that is imported from the Pacific travels along infrastructure that is not in your area. You are benefiting from that. Federal tax dollars help pay for that. Even within your area, you are paying for roads that you do not use.

                      "You are equating government schools being necessary for people being able to read and write. And then government schools being necessary to create net positive taxpayers."
                      No. Literacy was simply a stand-in for "partial education". And I didn't say it is necessary to create net positive, rather that it is necessary to prevent a net negative. Those who home school and those who pay to have their kids attend private schools are certainly more likely to be net positive taxpayers. The issue is those who cannot afford to pay for their kids education, cannot afford to take time away from work to educate their kids themselves, and those who do not have the capacity to educate.

                      "$20,000 = poor results via collectivism
                      $1,000 = solid results via personal responsibility"

                      The issue you have here is that you are conflating personal interests and societal benefits. It does not matter to society what "personal responsibility" costs you. 1k, 10k, 100k, 10 million... it makes no difference how much someone decides to spend on their own kid. What does matter is what happens to those kids whose parents either can or will not pay to educate them or can or will not educate them themselves. Education is not some sort of "feed the hungry" or "house the homeless" type of social play, it has a very real ROI. The question should be, if you remove public education, how many kids would not get educated and how would that effect their overall lifetime income?

                      Your kids = your responsibility sounds great and all, until they become junkies, criminals, on welfare, or otherwise of no benefit to or a drain on society. (note: None of that applies if you are also one of the remove all welfare, eliminate all safety nets, and pretty much of the "fuck them... let them starve in the streets" types.)

                    2. The transport sector using those roads are paying the local tax for their use. Those costs get passed onto the customers. This is called the shipping cost.

                      I completely disagree with coerced collectivism. It is expensive, ineffective and forces people into contracts that they did not agree too.

                      I oppose all forms of coerced welfare, government schools included. Another person’s lifestyle is their obligation. As is their earning potential.

                      Society is best served when contracts are mutually agreed to. Free association.

            2. So then why are public funds available for all kids, regardless of the parents’ wealth?

            3. . . .except that the places which spend the most on public schooling have the highest rates of violent crime . . .

        3. Get rid of public school. Problem solved.

        4. The low participation could be because parents are working too hard to pay property taxes, sales taxes, State and Federal inome taxes, capital gains taxes, and many other tax-created externalities to have time to participate. And even when they can participate, it is a "sea of mes," so even valid concerns get diluted in the baying of the crowd.

      2. As long as society is paying to education the children, society should have a say in how they are educated.

        First, "education" is not a verb. This is a stellar example of why I don't like the idea of people like yourself making education decisions on my behalf.

        Second, who is "society" and what does "have a say" mean, exactly?

        1. If you plan on disqualifying everyone who makes a typo from making education decisions on your behalf, homeschooling is your sole option.

          "Society" is an aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community (i.e. the school district). As a representative democracy, "have a say" would mean elect representative to make decisions on their behalf. In this case, elected school boards. I cannot believe I had to spell that out.

          1. If you plan on disqualifying everyone who makes a typo from making education decisions on your behalf, homeschooling is your sole option.

            You said the exact same thing in a different post above. And your grammar in general is pretty bad. So far I'm going to go with "guy who tries to sound more educated than he really is."

            And I do have another option, which is to keep my child in a private school of my choice, which is what I do because my local school district is literally one of the worst in the nation. I still pay the taxes for the school, but that funding goes to no particular school since my child isn't enrolled in one. Where does that funding go?

            "Society" is an aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community (i.e. the school district).

            The school district, the city, the county, the nation, the local church, the chamber of commerce, the neighborhood association. Which of these is the "Society" that gets make my decisions for me?

            As a representative democracy, "have a say" would mean elect representative to make decisions on their behalf.

            So, 'submit absolutely to the will of whomever can get 51% of votes cast?'

            I cannot believe I had to spell that out.

            Your spelling is not that good, either, tbh.

            1. I type slower than I think, use a keyboard that is too small for my hands and have a general "don't stop - correct in post" type of mentality. As such, I tend to make mistakes, keep going, and then correct later. Since spelling and grammar are not all that important to me on a forum post to strangers, I don't spend as much effort going back to proof and correct that I otherwise might. If that bugs you, I am fine if you prefer to skip my posts or simply fuck off. Although I suspect you have more of a "...attack the messenger" type of problem.

              That out of the way...

              "The school district, the city, the county, the nation, the local church, the chamber of commerce, the neighborhood association. Which of these is the "Society" that gets make my decisions for me?"
              You are dense if you don't know that all of the above have significant influence of you and your decisions. There are a number of entities, including both elected and appointed government officials, that is involved in education at all levels. Specially with public education, which was what the original post in this thread was about, prayer in (public) schools, Christian Science, which text books a school uses, sex ed., athletics, standardized testing, attendance/truancy and on on one, is controlled by a large number of entities. You are choosing who/where your child is getting an education and then entrusting them to educate your child. In the case of private schools, you still cannot control the full education of your child. Or do you believe one can tell the Catholic Diocese that they shouldn't teach their kid about Jesus at their schools? Spoiler: they cannot. Outside of moving your kid to a different school which aligns better to your desires, you are limited on what you can control.

              "So, 'submit absolutely to the will of whomever can get 51% of votes cast?'"
              You are making shit up and nobody said "submit" to anything. Parents are, and should be, welcome to try and get the schools to listen to them and consider their requests. They can also work to remove/replace board members. Home and private schools are a viable option for some. For public schools and the kids who attend them, it is the majority that elects the board, and it is the board which make the rules. What would your solution look like? Vocal minority? Whoever screams the loudest? Rock paper scissors?

              1. You are dense if you don't know that all of the above have significant influence of you and your decisions. There are a number of entities, including both elected and appointed government officials, that is involved in education at all levels.

                You're changing the subject. What you said was:

                As long as society is paying to education the children, society should have a say in how they are educated.

                I asked you to define "society" and you gave me a definition that applied to many, many different things that exist and influence people's lives. You agreeing that "society" doesn't mean much in-and-of-itself does not in fact help your argument.

                You are choosing who/where your child is getting an education and then entrusting them to educate your child.

                Most people don't have that choice, because their money is confiscated and given to the government schools.

                In the case of private schools, you still cannot control the full education of your child.

                And so no one should want any control, other than to pick which representative will control things for them? I actually do have influence over the school when I get to choose whether or not my child goes there. Do you know who I couldn't influence ever in any way? The public school she used to go to.

                You are making shit up and nobody said "submit" to anything.

                Here's what you said:

                As a representative democracy, "have a say" would mean elect representative to make decisions on their behalf.

                It sounds like "have a say" to you means "elect someone who will have a say." What happens when the religion-people in your society have decided that they want "our" school to be an all-Jesus-all-the-time school, and they get 55% of your school board?

                What would your solution look like?

                The funding follows the child and the parent chooses the school.

      3. My issue here is that it is not the "parents" who should have input to public education... it is the taxpayer who should have the input (granted, taxpayers with children are more likely to pay attention). As long as society is paying to education the children, society should have a say in how they are educated.

        We could do that with groceries, too. Up the taxes to fund the public provision of groceries to all citizens. So now it's the taxpayer paying for your groceries, not you. So it would be outrageous for you to insist on picking out your own groceries, rather than leaving it to the democratically elected Commission for Public Nutrition.

        Most parents pay for their kids education through their taxes. So there's no reason why their taxes should not be rebated to allow them to buy private schooling. OK those parents who can't afford to buy their kids an education, post tax rebate, will have to be at the mercy of the demos deciding what schooling their kids are to get.

        But simply taxing the bejasus out of the average parent, so they have no money left to school their kids, is simply a tactic to socialise education provision. It can be done with any area of life. Or every area of life - see the Commie realms.

        1. That wasn't my point. My point regarding "who" gets to have input into education decisions.

          I don't know about all state, but most states that I am familiar with tie school taxes to property. With that being the case, take the example of three houses on the same block, all in the same school district, and worth about the same amount. House 1 has 5 kids, house 2 has 1 kid, and house 3 has no kids. All three are paying the same tax amount to the local school. My point was that house 3 should have the same rights to determine the education provided by the public school as house 1 or 2 does, even though they don't "have a horse in the race".

          If you are going to rebate folks who send their kids to non-public schools, should we not also rebate those who choose not to breed? What about an upcharge for the breed-like-rabbits types?

          1. That wasn't my point.

            Obviously not. It would not assist your argument to acknowledge that "tax 'em till they can't afford X, then provide them with welfare X of the government's choosing" is a principle that can be extended to anything.

            As for your block, the principle you are appealing to is "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Are you proposing that the "say" in school board elections should be apportioned according to the size of your property tax bill ?

            If you are going to rebate folks who send their kids to non-public schools, should we not also rebate those who choose not to breed?

            Of course not. These people are contributing nothing to the preservation of humanity, and in their old age they will be mere incontinent parasites on the offspring of those who have put in the hard graft of raising children.

            In the spirit of humanity and charity, it would be wrong simply to put non-breeders down. Even though they are worthless contributors to the smog of CO2 that threatens life on Earth, and the sort of people who bid up the price of housing, clog the roads with their electric and bray tiresomely about "breeders" in wine bars. But there's no reason that we should pay any attention to what they say. At the very least they should pay a hefty income tax premium.

            What about an upcharge for the breed-like-rabbits types?

            It won't be long before these young rabbits will be wiping your behind for you.

            1. Of course not. These people are contributing nothing to the preservation of humanity, and in their old age they will be mere incontinent parasites on the offspring of those who have put in the hard graft of raising children.

              In the spirit of humanity and charity, it would be wrong simply to put non-breeders down. Even though they are worthless contributors to the smog of CO2 that threatens life on Earth, and the sort of people who bid up the price of housing, clog the roads with their electric and bray tiresomely about "breeders" in wine bars. But there's no reason that we should pay any attention to what they say. At the very least they should pay a hefty income tax premium.

              Hey, careful with that axe, Eugene!

              I'm as against Gummint Skoolz as any other libertarian and I am Childfree By Choice.

              Not that "contributions" are needed to justify my Individual Rights, but there's a literal fuck-ton of people who contributed labor, creations, inventions, ideas, inspiration, and beneficial cultural ways to humanity (including humanity's children) who never had children.

              Aristotle, Da Vinci, Beethoven, Thoreau, Susan B. Anthony, Nicolai Tesla, Alan Turing, Louis Armstrong, Henrietta Szold, and countless others:

              The Long List of
              Childfree (and Childless)
              in History: Part 1
              https://childfreebychoice.com/history.htm

              I don't hate children or parents as a class and don't ask anything of anybody except respect for my Individual Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness.

              No rebate of taxes is required from me, and I'll never expect that as long as were a Debtor Nation. Just don't make me pay any more for things I don't use.

              But if you think the Childfree and Childless need to pay an extra income tax premium, why not do as L. Neil Smith long ago suggested with anyone who says "There Oughtta Be A Law:"

              Take up a gun, go door-to-door, and enforce what you want. If you're not willing to do that, then keep your damn social engineering schemes to yourself.

              1. Mothers have done more for humanity than all of those people combined.

                Have at it.

                1. Mothers may have given birth to the people I mentioned, but mothers also gave birth to Nero, Genghis Khan, Torquemada, Robespierre, Jack The Ripper, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Peron, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceauşescu, Khomeini, and Bin Laden.

                  Spreading legs and bearing young does not equal special rights or privileges.

    2. As far as I can see parents/taxpayers aren’t arguing to design a whole curriculum, or even a partial one.

      1. Indeed. It is more in the nature of ordering at a restaurant - "hold the onions, please."

        Some restaurants don't allow such adjustments, but then you can always go elsewhere.

        1. But it isn't just "hold MY onions". It would be "hold the onions" for the whole school. Your example would be what you see with permission slips for specific classes or events or opt-in/out of select class material (in my day, at my school, they we required for sex-ed, field trips, and some in-school movie screenings). I've yet to see any parent group advocating for those kind of options with CRT.

          1. Fuck public school . Close them down entirely. Problem solved.

        2. What're your thoughts on an extra tax on people who don't buy Happy Meals? Or an extra tax on people who don't have kiddie tables at their Thanksgiving Feast?

          I'm waiting...

      2. They are not designing curriculum, but they are complaining about it and not suggesting solutions.

        We hear about parents complain about CRT, but that is not even taught in public school. CRT is law school stuff. So, what is it parents are really concerned about that they think is CRT? We here that people don't want the 1619 Project used, but that material was designed to place black people in American history.

        Ms. Hannah-Jones points out in here introduction to the 1619 Project her own experience in growing up in Iowa reading history that made little or no mention of blacks. So, she created a resource to change that fact. I don't think parents object to learning about blacks in our history, so what resource would they suggest instead?

        1. "We hear about parents complain about CRT, but that is not even taught in public school."

          This isn't remotely true. Have you seen some of the curricula of Loudoun County, Virginia? Those played a big factor to why Youngkin won the election for governor.

          The 1619 Project is also plagued with factual errors. That's where the objection mainly lies.

          1. Can you cite in the Curriculum where CRT is used? I know of no source that says it was used. So again, what do people mean when they say they object to CRT?

            As for the 1619 Project, what factual errors would you cite. Did the authors get dates wrong or people wrong, or places wrong? Or is the objection that they did not get the point of view correct?

    3. Fuck off slaver.

  20. Jones is a communist. Nothing more to add.

  21. Educators have become indoctrinators. Which is why we don't trust them with our children. Parents want their children to be educated, not programmed with liberal philosophies.

  22. I guess she has never read the UN Declaration of Human Rights, specifically Article 26, Section 3, which reads in its entirety: "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
    Huh, almost like... the entire free world (the UN General Assembly anyway) enshrined parent choice as a *fundamental human right.* I thought the intellectual elitists love the UN and the Declaration of Human Rights?

    I guess it is expecting too much that an illiberal charlatan would actually read..

  23. “Yes, it’s possible for parents to be too involved in school affairs, getting individual books removed from library shelves.” I don’t understand this comment at all. Robby, what you don’t like is the result of getting involved, in this case. Either you think parent involvement is OK or you don’t. If you think it’s OK there are going to be some actions you don’t like.

    1. Soft authoritarianism is still authoritarianism. "We'll humor you and let you be involved, until we decide you're too involved."

  24. The Progressives should absolutely continue to push this subject. Its a real winner for them at election time. LMAO! Not only are the completely wrong on the subject, they're too stupid to continue their shadow games of secretly pushing CRT. This is a classic GOP mistake. Party of stupid.

  25. a critique of ... capitalism, ableism,... and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society."

    Cue "This is John Galt speaking ". Even if these people don't believe their anti-enlightenment crap, they ought to have to sit through a months of consecutive broadcasts of that monologue just as punishment.

  26. The best solution to the education culture wars is to give parents the best kind of choice: school choice. Instead of engaging in venomous, all-consuming battles over what schools should teach to students, families should be empowered to take their education dollars and find a schooling option that best fits their children.

    Again, this is an absolutely ideal solution, in theory. And, certainly, if I had kids, I'd be looking at any alternative to public education I could find. But, as a solution to this problem, it's sort of like saying, "then do away with the welfare state" when the incompatibility of open borders and a welfare state is raised. Sure, it's an ideal solution. But, it's an ideal solution that is totally outside the bounds of plausibility in the foreseeable future. Libertarians are crowing about the fact that, during the pandemic, the percentage of students outside public schools soared from 10% to 16%. But, that means the vast, vast majority of students are in the public schools and that number is likely to go down when some element of normality returns to public school attendance policies. On a de facto basis, not fighting the educational culture wars and focusing on school choice amounts to ceding control of the nation's education system to the progressive educational establishment. A progressive educational establishment, it should be borne in mind, that is bitterly opposed to any form of school choice.

  27. In a recent interview on Meet the Press, Hannah-Jones confessed that she did not "understand this idea that parents should decide what's being taught."

    Mighty white of her.

  28. Maybe Reason and Hannah-Jones (and McAuliffe and others) are talking past each other. Reason seems to want to condemn Hannah-Jones because she doesn't believe parents should "decide" what is taught. And then Reason states this - "Yes, it's possible for parents to become too involved in school affairs, getting individual books removed from library shelves. But much of what parents have found objectionable in the past year is truly eyebrow-raising:".

    So which is it Reason? If parents should DECIDE what is taught, it's not possible for those same parents to "become too involved in school affairs". Should parents be able to decide that schools should teach white supremacy? Or that the Holocaust is a myth? Or that Trump won the election?

    1. If you show me an example of a school teaching White Supremacy or Holocaust Denial, I'll show you a school with some outraged parents. Your hypothetical is lunacy.

      1. Well there is the modern Leftist version of white supremacy which basically covers everything brought about by the enlightenment.

  29. "The best solution to the education culture wars is to give parents the best kind of choice: school choice. Instead of engaging in venomous, all-consuming battles over what schools should teach to students"

    This misses the point. Schools don't teach students. Teachers teach students. What is the use of school choice if there is no choice of teacher?

    1. ummmm does someone want to tell him?

  30. I'm shocked, shocked I say to learn that Nicole Hannah-Jones has said something moronic.

  31. This entire article could be shortened to just 5 words, "Nikole Hannah-Jones Doesn't Understand", without losing anything.

    1. Matthew, give me five hundred words on NHJ for tomorrow. I’d like to post it no later than noon. - Nick

  32. "Pulitzer Prize–winning series" that alone should tell you the silliness of these politically awarded prizes. The Russian Hoax against Trump was awarded every leftist award possible. And it was all a Clinton concoction. Like the Academy Awards these things are just self promotion and fodder for the publicity machine.

    Anyway just what are this woman's credentials and background that might give some context to her writings. Just wondering her source material and the basic scholarship behind their assertions. Actual historians really don't take her findings and writing creditable seriously yet awards are given by the NYT since it supports their ideology. Usual self aggrandizing by media morons.

    1. "Actual historians really don't take her findings and writing creditable seriously"

      They take them seriously enough. Some historians want to minimize the significance of her findings, and are more concerned with how the findings resonate with the current zeit geist (ex, the 'genocide of the white male hetero guy' that is happening all around us) than their credibility. Asking someone to view American history through the eyes of the Other can be extremely unsettling.

      1. I mean, if such a notion is supported by pseudohistory like that of Nikole Hannah-Jones, I don't blame them not taking that seriously as history yet seriously as a threat to society.

        Apparently some people out there can't see that.

        1. Looking at American History through the eyes of slaves rather than slave owners is a threat to society, at least according to some reactionaries, it seems. That explains the enormous amount of time spend on the issue. Let's not forget, however, there are many who don't feel a threat to themselves, society, or the white race.

  33. Absolutely. Right-wing parents should be able to inject creationism into science curriculums, when they're not suppressing black history

    1. get rid of public schools. problem solved.

      1. We need to restrict our choices to private schools only.

        1. yes. you're getting it...

          1. Less choice is more choice.

            1. When you get "public schools" that don't pack around the force of Gov-Guns with them stealing unwillingly to survive. Then we won't complain about "public schools"... Until then; stop being so stupid.

              1. If you don't like what public schools offer, choose a private one. What could be simpler than that?

                1. Not being forced with Gov-Guns to purchase something one has no intention of using. How about you get forced to pay for my mortgage?

                  1. " How about you get forced to pay for my mortgage?"

                    I would complain. Look for ways to avoid it. Consider moving in with you, which you would be forced to accept.

                    1. It's his property though. What if he wants to kick you out? You still have the problem of paying his mortgage.

                    2. "It's his property though."

                      I'm paying his mortgage. The fucker's lucky if I don't kick his sorry ass onto the street, the ingrate.

        2. Your choices are limited to those where all parties agree to the contract. That isn’t currently the case with government schools.

          1. I don't think it's necessary to sign a contract to send a kid to school. If you feel you can't trust the teachers, find another school. A contract isn't what you're looking for.

            1. There is no contract between the people coerced into funding it.

              1. The people could down tools and go on strike if they had any gumption. Or a union. Young Chinese dissidents have formed the tangping, lying flat, movement in protest against their coercive government rule. It's essentially go slow tactics if not a full blown strike and has the government worried. Americans can already send their kids to private schools if they chose to. I doubt they are going to get too worked up over a movement to narrow educational choices to only private schools. It makes no sense.

                1. Those consuming more than they produce agree with you. Of course it makes no sense to those types (the takers, not the makers). But they would be free to keep sending their kids there as long as they and the other parents actually pay for the service they receive.

                  1. Don't vets receive life long medical care that others (parents and non parents) pay for? Drivers use roads that others pay for? Americans seem fine with these arrangements, so why draw the line expecting elementary school students to pay their own way?

                    1. Why stop the Nazism??

                      Because it has destroyed everything the USA ever was and more-so everyday. Or perhaps; maybe pointing Gov-Guns at everyone else for what you want is what criminals do and ends up with a lot of unjustly dead people. Take your pick.

                    2. I don't see how children attending public school has anything to do with Naziism or genocide. Tone down the shrill and think a bit.

                    3. You don't see what National Socialism has to do with government owned and operated education entities? Sure, sure; do you also wonder why people believe water is wet?

                    4. "You don't see what National Socialism has to do with government owned and operated education entities?"

                      Public schools exist in many countries. There are also public universities, public trade schools, public professional schools all over the world. The notion that public schools are Nazi is ludicrous.

                    5. The Nazi Party - specific reference; National Socialist German's Workers Party.

                      Nazi acronym specifically; NAtionalSoZIalistische.

                      If you want to play ignorant about the last century in the USA and it's wild deter from the USA Constitution into Nazism; nothing is at work there but your own purposeful ignorance.

                    6. (1) They shouldn’t unless war was declared and they were injured in that war.
                      (2) People mostly pay for the fair share use of that road. A minority amount comes from other government funds. I’d prefer roads entirely be funded by each driver per their use. And in some places, EV drivers are not paying an equivalent of the fuel tax.
                      (3) I’m not.

                    7. What are you, some kind of idiot? Americans have been paying taxes before the Nazi party even existed.

                    8. Taxes for National Security; Not for Socialism building. That new type of tyranny started in the early 19th Century by the Democratic Party and gets stronger every year.

  34. because.... "Those aren't YOUR children; those are children of the Nazi-Regime", cries the Nazi-Regime fans.....

    F'en Criminals.

  35. The district also bought $24,000 worth of his books, which argue that any arrangement producing unequal results along racial lines is racist by definition.

    What's the racial makeup of NBA players lately?

    1. Not sure but they are all cis male.

  36. ""Guide your children's education and let your opponents teach their own kids."
    So the Young Earthers would forbid any mention of evolution; atheists, of any God; Christian evangelists, of any religion except theirs; Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, of medicine; Hasidim, of Christianity; Nation of Islam, of whites; geocentrists, of heliocentry; etc.

    1. Is there really any point in using **GOV-GUNS** to inflict any religious teachings? Ya know like this unproven, flat out proven FALSE religion of "global warming" ur um "climate changes" which is equivalent to the weather changes --- as if any 2yr old doesn't learn that by the mere fact of being alive.

  37. Lede photo Trigger Warning :

    NKH's loose noose earrings may induce PTS in Quebec by reminding Second Nations of Madame Lafarge's mini-guillotine bling

  38. She is a racialist. Which is a nice way of saying she is a racist. She is half white and that is the half she self hates. Just like Howard Zinn, her out of context fabricated version of history has been debunked by thousands of real historians and real scholars. S#!+bags like her should never be given any credibility. But then, when has the New York Times has ever had any credibility.

  39. Government schooling is a total loss. Shut them down, demolish the buildings, plow them under, and salt the ground where they stood.

    Education is far too important to leave in the hands of the apparatchiki.

    -jcr

  40. Jones is a fat communist pig. She is the type you have to watch very carefully. She is very evil and controlling like all Marxists/socialists. She and her fellow communists would just as soon murder the rest of us rather than allow any opposition to their twisted ideas.
    They've done it before and they'll do it again. To call this woman a megalomaniac would be understated.
    The rubbish being forced onto unwitting young children is akin to brainwashing and indoctrination. Period. Parents not only have the right to object but to also have it stopped. The parents pay taxes, funding the ever decaying public education system that needs to be either completely overhauled or dismantled.
    The good people of Loudoun County in West Virginia are leading the way. Vote them out and then press charges. This needs to happen all over the country.

  41. K-12 education is simply not something so complicated that it requires any special expertise to teach it. I would argue that anyone who has graduated from high school could do the job.

  42. What’s wrong with what is being taught to your children?

    Is it the lies?

    Or is it who develops the curriculum?

    Why don’t you address the real problem?

  43. I think for the most part, parents always act as an example for their children. It is important to raise questions about what is important, and to communicate values correctly. If questions with writing essays are easy to solve with the help of such services https://writemyessays.me/how-to-prepare-high-school-entrance-essay/ , then you need to talk about painful things in a completely different way.

  44. So if parents want their children to be taught that slaves were happy in their plantations and that Emancipation was a terrible idea, we should teach them that?

    If parents do not want Evolution to be taught, should we complY?

    If devout parents want their children to learn that Catholics are enemies and Jews the spawn of Satan, should we let them dictate?

    It is easy to generalize until we get down to cases.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.